Following Euthyphro comes the Apology. The stage is set for Socrates to defend himself against the charges put forth against him and a chance to clear his name. The charges facing Socrates are "corrupting the youth" and his "disbelief in the God's." Contrary to the title Apology, Socrates is not apologetic at all; he is in fact defending himself and his ways. Instead of swallowing his pride and dignity by pleading for his life, he boldly explains the motives behind his way of living.
From the start Socrates tries to explain this "wisdom" that is responsible for his reputation.He goes on about his friend Chairephon's trip to see the Oracle. At this meeting the Oracle states that no man has more wisdom then Socrates. After hearing this, Socrates made it his mission to question men who were known for their great wisdom. After meeting with numerous of these acclaimed "men of reason" he came to a conclusion, "At any rate it seems that I am wiser then he to a small extent, that i do not think that i know what i do not know."(Plato D45) He realizes that after meeting with these men that they in fact do not know much about anything, they only think they do. It becomes clear to Socrates that he is more wise then these men because instead of making up lies to cover up his lack of wisdom, he just admits that he does not know anything. this is where i realized the extent of Socrates boldness. Aside from mopping the floor with Meletus and making him look like a fool or his faulty accusations, he does something on a larger scale with a much bigger risk. These men that he is indirectly calling "fakes" are the very same people who make up the court and the jury. They have Socrates life in their hands and he is standing in front of the entire court practically calling them fools after he just called their bluff. I could almost imagine the jury-men's faces getting redder with anger by the minute. They all must have all had the idea of Socrates begging and pleading for his life in front of the court, but they were sorely mistaken.
After the jury deliberates, they find Socrates guilty and to be put to death. This is where the jury expected to receive a sense of closure and justice but Socrates does not allow this. Socrates does not kick and scream when he receives is sentence, he accepts his fate with a few final words. He lets the men of the jury know that even though he is being put to death now, they all will face a far worse fate, "When I leave this court I shall go away condemned by you to death, but they will go away convicted by Truth herself of depravity and injustice. And they accept their sentence even as I accept mine.'(Plato 39b) He even goes as far as almost threatening the men with their own fate, "I tell you, my executioners, that as soon as I am dead, vengeance shall fall upon you with a punishment far more painful then you're killing of me."(Plato 39c) If this was not enough he speaks confidently about death and that regardless of where he ends up he will be content. He explains that he will be happy with either of the possible outcomes, eternal slumber of residing with the fellow dead.
After reading I started to think of who really won this trial. Yes, Socrates was found guilty and sentenced to death, but did he really lose? From the start to the finish of his defense he preaches his beliefs while at the same time indirectly mocking the men of the court. Even when he was sentenced to death he did not lose an ounce of dignity, he took it confidently. By doing this he stripped the court of any celebration, and left them off to think about their now doomed fate. In my eyes Socrates is the winner, but with the God's on your side could you really lose?
11 comments:
Here's the definition of "apology" from the Oxford English Dictionary (both the online version available at http://www.askoxford.com/ and the portable version that I have installed on my cellphone):
1. a regretful acknowledgement of an offence or failure.
2. (an apology for) a very poor example of.
3. a justification or defence.
ORIGIN Greek apologia "a speech in one’s own defence".
From the above it seems like you missed and hit the bull's eye at the same time - "Socrates is not apologetic at all; he is in fact defending himself and his ways."
Regarding the "winning the trial" I find it odd that you think Socrates "stripped the court of any celebration." I mean the jury's job is to decide whether the defendant is guilty or not and regardless of the result it cannot be regarded as their win or loss. The jury "traditionally said to have been 500 or 501" (33) -very large I must say- represented the citizens and the guilty verdict meant just one thing - the citizens (at least most) would perceive this as Socrates’ being guilty of Meletus’ accusations. The very few Socrates’ supporters, some present at the trial no doubt (among whom was Plato of course) could not do much to help him, they were basically the “minority.” And the “majority” however “wrong” is always “right.”
Of course looking back at things from our standpoint now everything takes on a different context, but for those Athenians back then it was clear who “winner” and “loser” were.
I believe Socrates' attitude towards his possible termination is the most important aspect in the Apology. In his opening statement he explained that he is very unfamiliar with the talk of the courts so the council would just have to bear with him and not feel that he is trying to trick them with his dialogue. He wanted it to be known right then and there that he was telling the members he would speak his mind as freely as he knew possible in the most pivotal and important defense in his life, for his life. The fact that Socrates so boldly said he does not fear death in the way the jury wants him to cannot be stressed enough. There is a saying that actions speak much louder than words and his brazen action and explanation that he did not want to stoop to the level of bringing in his children for sympathy points spoke volumes and gave the jury a realization that Socrates was the real deal. I believe that Socrates, as a proclaimed messenger of God, made a demonstration of God's power and will when he succumbed to the injustice of the guilty verdict and met his fate with a smile and a few words of herald. I do not believe Socrates felt he was winning or losing any battle in the court that day, just simply showing them the outcome of what his lifestyle actually meant and how even the prospect of death is not something to fear and force him to stray from his purpose. It was just the opposite.
For the most part, I agree with what was said. But a small part of me wonders if Socrates did in fact understand how to speak to the court. He said he didn't, but throughout reading the different stories about him, I kept getting the sense that he didn't mean it when he said things like that (for example, in Euthyphro, when he was acting like Euthyphro was smart and had all the answers. I believe Socrates knew that wasn't so). And again, I think Socrates handled his death sentence in a braver fashion than most, but at the same time, he did try to get the jury to settle on a different punishment, ie, the fines. His actions before and after this small attempt to save his life were bold and stuck true to what he said about not caring if he dies, but it's definitely interesting to note that for a second, even Socrates faltered on the concept of his own death.
Socrates is indeed regarded highly among some of the most brilliant philosophers to ever live. However, not many know about his unparalleled valor in his final days. This passage demonstrates the man's devout belief in his teachings and shows how far the theorist was willing to go in order to defend his conviction.
As mentioned in the post, “they have Socrates life in their hands and he is standing in front of the entire court practically calling them fools after he just called their bluff.”
What is more unbelievable than Socrates' spirit is what he is being accused of. It is ironic that Socrates is exonerated for corrupting the youth of Athens. On the contrary, Socrates firmly believes in the proliferation of the youth’s intellect. This is evidenced by the works of his followers, most notably Plato. Socrates seeks to culminate the minds of Athens' children rather than "corrupt" them. He imparts his knowledge of reasoning to the youth and teaches them to question societies norms.
Socrates was certainly in the minority with his questions and is prosecuted because of his determination for answers.
I definitely agree that Socrates was the winner of the trial, even though he was sentenced to death. Socrates had visions far beyond of what jury were able to see. He talked about educating the youth, asking questions, doubting the truth and seeking the right answers. Essentially, Socrates laid a vital foundation to intellectual curiosity and educational zeal. I agree with Bilal, i think it's tragic that Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth, because his mission was to spread the power and intellect of the young. In the end, Socrates says that his death will hurt the society more than himself. He talked about not fearing death, for it could possibly be the biggest blessing. Socrates was truly a mastermind.
I was very impressed with how Socrates carried himself throughout his trial. Instead of pleading for his life and attempting to sway the jury, Socrates in a way sealed his own fate. Even when given multiple opportunities to perhaps convince the jury and save himself, Socrates does not back down and instead subtly insults the jury and his prosecutors. The manner of which he did so was seriously legit. Socrates couldn't have gone out in a better way. I agree with everyone else when they say Socrates was the winner of the trial, despite being sentenced to death. It was definitely a moral victory and he stood up for what he believed in and never changed or swayed his opinion.
I really couldn't have said it better. Very good evaluation of the document, John. The greatness of the Apology is that it goes a lot deeper than just defending one's life in the court. The Apology is about living out your purpose in life and standing up for what you believe in. Socrates was not afraid to die for what he knew was sacred.
I really like your closing remark, "But with the God's on your side could you really lose?" because it carries the positive message of the Apology, that the real winner of the trial was Socrates, who was called by God, and whose wisdom will live forever.
Some of you assert that the “winner” of the trial was in effect Socrates despite him being condemned to die. I fully understand where you are coming from and that you base this statement on a moral criterion. However, I also think that you have to be careful not to be misguided by cultural relativism when assessing what is morally just. In other words, are we using our present day cultural standards to assess what was just over two thousand years ago in Greek society or are we assessing the trial based on Greek societal standards of that period?
"I tell you, my executioners, that as soon as I am dead, vengeance shall fall upon you with a punishment far more painful than you're killing of me."(Plato 39c) As Socrates threatens this statement upon his executioners, he makes it clear that he believes in some form of karma, “what goes around comes around.” Clearly, Socrates does not believe that he is in the wrong, thus, he trusts that those who have unjustly taken his life will face the consequences tenfold. Socrates is essentially being charged with “atheism,” which, I believe, does not serve as a fair accusation in his case. Atheism is the absence of believing in God, which contradicts the evidence that Socrates’ follows the command of the higher power in which he believes, even if it causes him to refute the laws of the civil government.
Socrates is assertive and intimidating when speaking to authorities, as well as “unapologetic” like your blog accurately implied. I find it peculiar that the name of this reading is “Apology,” when we can all agree that it appears as though Socrates is not sorry in the least. But perhaps Socrates truly is regretful, just in a less obvious way. It could be that Socrates’ feels remorseful towards the way others believe they must behave. Maybe Socrates feels for those who, subconsciously, experience a sense of confusion in their religious standing, because he thinks that society (under the influence of piousness) has stripped them of their freedom to form rational opinions.
Good, provoking post.
Some questions, comments:
1) Given the gravity of Socrates' situation, do you think his "boldness" was appropriate? If one has a god on their side, it seems to denigrate their boldness.
2) Do you think that Socrates actually keeps himself from revenge? Because it seems to me like mocking the members of the jury is precisely a way of revenging oneself. So I find it hard to believe Socrates' self-judgment.
3) Is the jury's sense of closure, as you put it, really some kind of confirmation of their power in the penalty they impose and the recognition they expect from Socrates? That would be a strange kind of "closure." But you are right that celebration is spoken of, despite how odd a context that would be for this.
4) I don't know if I think that Socrates' really won the debate. I am not sure if there could be a winner. I cannot help but think there is a sense in which Socrates, by being condemned, finds the jury doing his own bidding for him, namely, sending him on his way to the afterlife. Yet, Socrates' arguments were ultimately unconvincing ...
Post a Comment